Introduction
About ten years ago, I began this blog to share technical knowledge. I initially started out running 👻 Ghost on a private host using Docker containers and a separate database, but I soon discovered I needed something simpler to handle. I converted to Ghost with SQLite and utilized Buster, a popular Python utility, to generate static pages. After Ghost upgrades and Buster’s deprecation, I switched to a community-maintained static exporter—Ghost does not provide an official static export, thus community solutions filled the space left by 👻 Ghost.
I tried a community-built static exporter, which required me to manually fix links and transformations that it did not support. It worked for years, but build times grew; what used to take around a minute now takes about five minutes to complete the whole site. The combination of slower builds and recurring manual fixes drove me to switch to a simpler, faster approach called Hugo.
That’s my current Blog flow:
My Ghost 👻 experience
I initially chose Ghost because it offered a cleaner, lighter writing experience than WordPress—no plugin maintenance, a focused editor, and adaptable themes that made the site both beautiful 🧸❤️ and easy to manage. Is still straightforward to install and use, but upgrades occasionally include breaking changes that require manual fixes. Although the community forum and third-party advice are useful.
Over the years, I’ve adapted my repository several times to find a reliable workflow: first as an installed package with themes in the repository, then as a systemd service (which proved fragile), and finally as lightweight Alpine-based Docker images to run Ghost locally for writing and producing static output for publication.
What Ghost Does Well?
Writing experience
Ghost allows you to mix Markdown and raw HTML block elements, which I appreciated. That combination allowed me to precisely handle embeds, layout blocks, and custom markup without leaving the editor. Compare it to my WordPress experience, which often felt like working in a WYSIWYG word processor and produced unpredictable HTML, Ghost’s Markdown-first workflow enabled me focus on writing ✏️ while keeping the output clean, consistent, and easy to modify.
Built-in features
Ghost prioritizes SEO: the user interface allows you to adjust the title, meta description, canonical URL, OG/Twitter cards, slug, publish date, structured data, and social previews for each post.
The editor is Markdown-first, with “cards” for embeds, pictures, and raw HTML, live preview, and easy media management — fast 💨 for writing but flexible for exact output.
Memberships and comments are optional and useful for income or interaction, but not needed for a static, content-focused website.
Where Ghost Became Overkill ☢️ for Me?
Infrastructure and maintenance
Ghost is a dynamic CMS, not static‑first. Exporting or “faking” static output requires extra scripts or manual fixes, which adds fragility and ongoing maintenance. Ghost’s frontend (Ember + Handlebars) requires hard changes in template/JS overrides that fail on upgrade.
Performance considerations
Ghost is not necessarily slow 🐌; theme quality and deployment determine performance. Many themes come with huge pictures, extensive JavaScript, or third-party widgets that require customization. Ghost can be quite quick if you use a lightweight or optimized theme and host it properly.
Flexibility and control limitations
Ghost is flexible and can handle static pages and posts well for most uses. One limitation: you can’t easily put in reusable, reactive components as you can with Vue or React. Ember-based themes and the editor don’t make component-style injection easy.
🩹 Workarounds:
- Embed raw HTML or custom editor cards for specific widgets.
- Use client-side scripts for small interactive pieces.
- If you need many component-driven blocks, consider a static build workflow that supports components/shortcodes.
Keep it simple: Ghost works for 99% of content, but heavy component-driven layouts are harder to maintain.
Why Hugo Fits My Blog Better?
Simplicity and speed
Hugo builds are fast; the full site regenerates in seconds. No runtime CMS means fewer upgrades, fewer surprises, and far less ongoing maintenance.
Easy to extend and full control over layout
I use PaperMod to create a clean baseline that is easy to tweak. Hugo’s Go templates, partials, and shortcodes allow me quickly modify the structure, add components, and adjust CSS. Changes show up in the following build.
Integrations
✨ Syntax highlighting, RSS, search indexing, Mermaid diagrams via shortcodes, and similar utilities are easy to set up and maintain throughout the development process.
Git-based workflow
Content, review, and deployment takes place in Git: edit, open a PR, CI produces the site, and Netlify (or another service) deploys on push. It is reproducible, observable, and easy to roll back.
Hugo provides speed, predictability, and direct management, making it ideal for a single-author, markdown-first blog.
Trade-offs
Static sites trade off runtime complexity for third-party dependency. You will delegate forms, comments, newsletters, and search to external providers.
💡 Recommendations: Choose providers that fit your budget and prioritize build-time indexes to minimize runtime dependencies 📦.
Who should choose Hugo vs Ghost?
Hugo felt like the natural choice when your primary goal is simple, quick static pages for a blog. If you recognize the following points, Hugo may be a better fit. ⚡️
🔌 No need for Ghost integrations — If you don’t use Zapier, Google Sheets, Typeform, Slack, or other Ghost-native connectors, you may avoid the runtime complexity they provide.
💳 No membership/paywall requirements — Once you are not looking to host exclusive or paid content, you don’t need Ghost’s membership features.
✍️ Single author workflow — You’re the sole writer, so a markdown editor and Git-based workflow are more efficient than a full CMS admin UI.
🧩 Preference for simplicity — Want fewer points to modify and easier maintenance? Hugo’s build-time approach keeps tools straightforward and predictable.
🔁 Git-centric publishing — If you prefer editing, reviewing, and deploying from Git, Hugo integrates cleanly the workflow.
🔎 Local control over assets and templates — Full control over templates, assets, and build-time generation (search indexes, RSS, shortcodes) without runtime patches.
Hugo is the ideal blog platform for those that value speed, minimal setup, and a Git/Markdown-first workflow. 🌿
Final Thoughts
I hope that my shared opinion and experience will help you choose the tool that works best for you.
Keep your kernel 🧠 updated, and God bless 🕊️ you and your family!
Merry Christmas. 🎅 🎄 🎁 ✨
